Is U.S. right to arm Syrian rebels?

President Barack Obama has concluded that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. He has authorized direct military support to rebels seeking to overthrow Bashar Assad. Specifics of the aid are not yet known, but officials insist it will not include U.S. troops on the ground.

Mass burial site of people allegedly killed by Syrian Army snipers, in Aleppo, Syria, in April. (AP photo)

The president previously said that if Assad used chemical weapons, it would cross a “red line” and that he would respond by supporting the rebels. Intelligence reports indicate that up to 150 people have died from attacks using chemical weapons.

The Washington Post reports that Syrian rebels say the aid might be coming too late. They also warn that they need more than the light arms and ammunition likely to be the initial weapons to arrive.

U.S. officials say President Obama has not decided whether to create a no-fly zone to protect the rebels.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said outsiders should not be providing weapons. However, Russia has been arming Assad’s forces with rockets and other materiel.

One concern is that the United States could end up supporting Muslim extremists who could succeed in taking over Syria. Another is that Syria or Hezbollah could try to retaliate by striking at Israel. Some also fear a “slippery slope” in which the United States is compelled to send more and more aid and, perhaps, even troops.

Advocates of sending military aid say it is necessary to prevent war crimes and to put Assad on notice that the United States intends to remain a vital and credible power in the region.

What do you think? Is the U.S. right to arm Syrian rebels? Take our poll and/or leave a comment.